Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
●Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap.
==================================================================================================================================================================

Yesterday, a reader, golfer1john, expressed concern about the amount of immigration to America. You can read my response in the comment section of the previous post.

The second wave of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children has begun, with more than 3,000 of them surging across the Mexican border into the U.S. last month — the highest rate since the peak of last summer’s crisis and a warning that another rough season could be ahead.

Immigration officials warned that they expected another surge as the weather improved. Although the numbers are down some 40 percent compared with last year’s frenetic pace that sparked a political crisis for the Obama administration, fiscal year 2015 is shaping up to mark the second-biggest surge on record.

Let’s parse these two short paragraphs. Including the title, the word “surge” repeatedly was used. (Three thousand, down from 5,000 is a “surge”?)

Three thousand a month comes to 36,000 a year, which is just 4% of the average immigration rate. Wow, a 4% “surge”!

Further, the paragraphs manage to include such words as “frenetic pace,” “wave,” “crisis,” “rough season,” “warning,” and of course, the inevitable, “illegal,” all designed to scare you.

And all this scary rhetoric for just 3,000 children, down from 5,000.

In reading those two paragraphs, one might think (as you are supposed to think), that we are being swarmed with brown-skinned children, smothering us like locusts.

In reality, a relative handful (compared with the size of America) of frightened children are begging for sanctuary here, to avoid being enslaved or raped or killed, or simply to find a decent life.

And the right-wing Washington Times wants us to send them back to misery because . . . because what?

Are we so crowded that we don’t have room for the children? No, America still is mostly empty land.

So what is the reason?

Bigotry and xenophobia. The children have brown skins. There is no outrage about Canadian or European immigration.

Authorities report having captured 15,647 children traveling without parents who tried to jump the border in the first six months of the fiscal year. Through this point in 2014, they had apprehended 28,579.

Oh, thank goodness we compassionate Americans were able to capture these vile children and send them back to the horrors they bravely tried to escape, because they represent such a danger to us and to our pure American way of life.

Yes, they are illegal, and why are they illegal? Because we created their illegality.

We created an unnecessarily harsh system whereby children must wait many years to achieve legality.

We created the classic “gotcha” system, a kind of “speed-trap,” in which a hick town sets up a 25MPH speed limit on a 70MPH highway, and arrests anyone who “breaks the law” by going too fast.

The U.S. has created an immigration speed trap and now we are horrified that anyone should break our terrible law.

Just as worrisome is the rate of whole families — usually mothers with young children — who are crossing. So far this fiscal year, authorities have captured 13,911 “family units,” down 30 percent from last year.

Isn’t that wonderful? Doesn’t that make you proud? Our authorities have arrested 13,911 family units — you know, those 13,911 evil mothers and children who are overwhelming America.

Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies said the Obama administration and Congress have not taken steps to end the “pull factors.”

Who? The Center for Immigration Studies? Who are they?

Here’s how they describe themselves:

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization.

The data collected by the Center during the past quarter-century has led many of our researchers to conclude that current, high levels of immigration are making it harder to achieve such important national objectives as better public schools, a cleaner environment, homeland security, and a living wage for every native-born and immigrant worker.

Many of us at the Center are animated by a “low-immigration, pro-immigrant” vision of an America that admits fewer immigrants but affords a warmer welcome for those who are admitted.

Isn’t that sweet? “Independent, non-partisan,” but also “low-immigration,” while being “pro-immigration.” (Huh?)

And of course, they want to give immigrants a “warmer welcome.” (By sending them back south to a warmer climate.)

And are we really to believe that supposedly “high” levels of immigration make it hard for us to have better schools, a cleaner environment, homeland security and a living wage?

I’ll tell you what makes these things hard, and it’s not immigration.

It’s the cut-federal-spending, austerity policy of the Tea Republicans that have destroyed our schools.

It’s the anti-environment policies of the Tea Republicans that have created the pollution that dirties our environment.

It’s the anti-worker, pro-corporation policies of the Tea Republicans that have prevented a living wage.

And as for homeland security, do you really believe that these 3,000 children a month represent a threat to America’s security?

In short, this self-proclaimed “independent, non-partisan, research organization” has an agenda. It is nothing but a mouthpiece for the austerity-inducing, Tea Republican, anti-brown-skin xenophobes.

Legitimate, unbiased research indicates that immigrants, on balance, benefit America.

Further, the whole notion of sending innocent children back to the horrors they bravely try to escape, is repugnant to me as an American and as a human being. It should be repugnant to you, too.

But that is what the xenophobes do to us. They destroy our moral code. They blind us with scare tactics. They make us cruel to innocent children and innocent mothers.

Initiating The Ten Steps sequentially will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
——————————————————————————————————————————————

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

8 Responses to –Immigration scare tactics revealed

I normally ignore your posts of this nature, but since you mentioned me …

Obviously the “surge” is in relation to the normal flow of unaccompanied children, not the previous peak. Probably about 0 children per month come in unaccompanied during the winter months.

The costs are mostly not borne by the monetarily sovereign Federal government, but by the non-monetarily sovereign state governments. That was why I asked in your other post whether an “open borders” policy was contingent on your ten steps. The border states can’t afford it by themselves.

I never “expressed concern about the amount of immigration to America”. I asked a question. I did express concern, implicitly, about our disparate and unfair treatment toward two groups of would-be immigrants.

I think our limits are too low. It would be far better to secure the border and allow lots more legal immigrants than to have miscreants sneaking in. Since anyone without a criminal record can come to the US on a tourist visa and stay forever, it is obvious that the only people who would risk their lives walking through the desert, risk being kidnapped and held for ransom by the coyotes who guide them, would be those who would not be granted a tourist visa.

“Posts of this nature”?? What nature is that? Expressing sympathy for the underdog and contempt for bigots?

I understand the meaning of the word, “surge,” and we both understand the purpose of the word “surge,” especially when it is repeated again and again and again, in the headline and in the body copy — along with all the other scare words.

Let’s try to minimize the sophistry.

You asked, “Are you in favor of the current policy, which allows the second group to stay and work, and shows our national middle finger to the first?
Or should we do away with the immigration process, and let everyone who wants to come and work do so, without government interference?”

And then you said, “I never ‘expressed concern about the amount of immigration to America”. I asked a question.,”

Oh, the innocence. I guess your comment about showing the national “middle finger” and “letting everyone in” does not indicate your concern.

More sophistry. “Just asked a question.” Puleeze.

You’re right about the costs being borne by monetarily non-sovereign entities when they should be borne by the federal government. That should be fixed. I’ve said so hundreds of times, for the past 15 years.

What is the implication of “those who would not be granted a tourist visa.” That they are undesirables?

Those impoverished children and their impoverished mothers — why can’t they get tourist visas? Hmmm . . . I wonder what you really mean.

Even more sophistry?

And then there’s my favorite bit of sophistry: “Secure the border.” At what point is the border “secure”? When only 10,000 people manage to get across? When no one gets across? For the right-wingers, the border never can be “secure” enough.

Here’s a thought. Make a proposal.

If you don’t agree with current policy, how would you change it? Put yourself on the line.

My solution to the immigration fiasco is
1. Immediately raise this year’s quota by 12 million, the estimated number of illegals already here.
2. Anyone who is here illegally will not be prosecuted for 6 months. During that time they may return to their home country and re-enter legally, without penalty, provided they meet the normal requirements and do not displace others who have been on a “waiting list”.
3. Finish securing the Southern border. To use a currently popular number, “99%” of the illegal crossings occur on the relatively small part of the border that does not yet have a fence on it. The parts with fences have comparatively very few illegal crossings.
4. Enforce the “green card” requirements and sanction employers who ignore them
5. Require employers to use the Federal E-Verify system
6. Vigorously prosecute identity theft of all sorts, including but not limited to that committed by or on behalf of illegal job-seekers
7. Study and determine how much higher the ongoing immigration quotas need to be, or perhaps even raise them to “infinity” for highly desirable candidates or to resolve temporary local needs.
8. Permit unlimited legal access for temporary workers (who are primarily seasonal agricultural workers, but could include seasonal retail and transportation workers as well) who do not want to immigrate permanently
We are a nation of immigrants. There is no reason to deny access to people seeking a better life here, in manageable numbers. There IS a need to limit access by those who would do us harm.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell says:
December 29, 2011 at 8:53 pm
You have some very good ideas, John.

P.S. None of my proposals are contingent upon changes in fiscal policy. They can be done today without any of the ten steps.

Not a bad try, but still lacks a purpose. What is the fundamental purpose of all the cruel, punitive and limiting steps?

Why do we need to create a police state?

For instance, regarding #2, there have been casual estimates of 12 million undocumented living here. Would you really try to find, uproot and deport the probable 11,999,000 human beings who don’t self deport?

Aside from the moral issues and the logistical impossibility of doing it, do we want to create that police state, where neighbors spy on neighbors?

Frankly, I see no purpose to sending families back and forth across our borders. What’s the purpose of deporting people who already are here and may have been here for years?

Is this the America you envision?

Not sure about the purposes of 4, 5, 6. There are serious downsides to preventing people from earning a living. Why not simply let them become legal citizens or just continue to work here?

Why do they need to be punished?

(And please let’s not get into the phony argument about “rewarding illegality.” That’s nothing more than an excuse to be cruel.)

What would be the criteria for #7 and what does “‘need’ to be” mean?

Do you see the logical and moral disconnect between #8, and the rest of the ideas? It’s almost like temp workers aren’t really people — just tools for our farmers to use as wanted, but with no human value.

(“Here, do this back-breaking stoop labor none of us wants to do, then when you’re finished, get the hell out. You are subhuman nonentities, with no rights.”)

In short, the whole process lacks a fundamental purpose. What is the real problem all of this solves?

Too many immigrants? Homeland security? Cost?

My suggestion:

1. Vet everyone at the border for criminality.
2. Stop the criminals and let the rest in.
3. Those who apply for, and attain, citizenship can vote.

So now you want no limits, open borders. That ‘s different from what you said before.

It’s a fundamental change in political philosophy, a reversal of the traditional sovereign right to control immigration. That’s not to say it’s wrong, but would require quite different political and legal structures than what we have today. It also would most definitely require your ten steps, or at least a huge subsidy to the border states which will absorb most of the millions of new immigrants who will require social services traditionally provided by state and local taxpayers.

I’m sure Pope Francis would agree with you: open borders is the moral high ground. The only problem is that it’s ultimately impractical.

And if you don’t secure the border, you can’t stop the criminals, so there’s no point in bothering to vet anyone at the border.

Since many of the people who would come in will have little money, be looking for jobs, have few skills and speak little or no English, they’ll put enormous pressure on the low end of the wage scale, raising unemployment among the poor Americans and immigrants who are already experiencing Depression-level unemployment, and expanding the supply of labor in the underground, sub-minimum-wage economy. Without a job guarantee, how do you deal with that?

My suggestions assume that a nation has the right to control immigration, and to regulate it in the interest of its citizens. All the elements have a common purpose: to provide for a level of legal immigration that fulfills the public purpose, to treat everyone involved in the process fairly and humanely, and to make it difficult for anyone to “game the system” and gain unfair advantage.

If there is no such right, then yours is the better way, even without the ten steps.

Australia is losing its moral compass for the same reasons. Tens of thousands fly in and try to settle here. They become “illegals”. But then there are the “boat people” who find themselves treated as “illegals” and sent to gulags on Pacific islands or even turned back. The mantra; “arrive by boat, you will not be resettled here!”
This is a total of less than 5000 people over many years.

Misstating my position may make one feel like they’ve “won” an argument, but other than augmenting a low self-image, what else does it accomplish, other than to create disrespect for anything the person says?

Anyway, are you a citizen of America? I am.

And in my case, I didn’t speak English when I arrived; I easily acquired a Social Security number but didn’t even pay taxes for many years. I didn’t have to apply from overseas; I didn’t have to wait seven years; I didn’t have to pass any tests, once I arrived here;

I even was given free schooling in first dozen plus years of my citizenship. Pretty good, huh?

I was born here.

So by the laws that existed at the moment of my birth, I magically became a citizen. I didn’t “earn” it. I was simply given it.

Those laws were man-made, not God-given. They could have been different. They could have said, for instance, that I was not a citizen until the age of 18, when I had to pass a test on the Constitution.

Or, the law could have said, for instance, that if I were once a black slave, I wasn’t a citizen at all — laws that existed in 1857. (Dred Scott)

Being a citizen merely depends on man-made laws at any given time.

So, what makes me, who “Immigrated” to this nation by way of birth a better citizen than someone who came to this nation by way of boat?

The point is: All this talk about “illegal” immigrants ignores the fact that we all “immigrated” here, and just by luck, we happen to be made citizens.

And lest you believe that is only natural, there has been a movement (by Southern states, of course), to disallow citizenship for children born here to non-citizen mothers.

Yes, a nation “has the right to control immigration, and to regulate it in the interest of its citizens.” But what does “control” really mean, and specifically what interests are you talking about?

Your answer is a series of platitudes: “To provide for a level of legal immigration that fulfills the public purpose”
[Which public purpose and how is it measured?]

“. . . to treat everyone involved in the process fairly and humanely. . . ” [“Humanely’ meaning to deport children and families, even people who have built a good life here?]

” .. . and to make it difficult for anyone to “game the system” and gain unfair advantage.”

[Unfair? If I sneaked in, and you didn’t, but we both attain citizenship now, how did my sneaking in hurt you?]

Allow me to repeat my suggestions:

1. Vet everyone at the border for criminality.
2. Stop the criminals and let the rest in.
3. Those who apply for, and attain, citizenship can vote.

And, as always, this is contingent on the Ten Steps to Prosperity.

Finally, you forgot to address the issues from my previous comment — beginning with the first one: , “Would you really try to find, uproot and deport the probable 11,999,000 human beings who don’t self deport?”.